That ignores the social problems that occur from cutting every agency by 20%, that ignores the millions of people that are now unemployed (and will be draining welfare coffers even faster) and it ignores that you can't even tangibly cut 20% from certain things (ie you can't just stop paying interest on debt by 20%, or SS by 20%).

Then there is the biggest problem in this scheme in that a lot of the money we spend just goes back into states anyway. Sure, take 20% away of the money we give to states, what do you think is going to happen to them? they are going to lay off their state works, cut back on their programs etc etc.

Bottom line, even in fantasy world where you can cut 20% without negative effects you still can't balance the budget, you aren't even close. You need taxes, new revenues, socialism, retribution of wealth whatever you want to call it I say again you simply can not get from point A to point B on spending cuts alone.

How about 20% budget cuts for every federal agency? People are going to lose their jobs, but so be it. Bring on the pain. It's a necessary pain.

You could even probably get by with no cuts if everyone would promise and follow through on having 0% growth in spending for awhile. The problem is nobody will do that. All the politicians have been talking about how good they're being with spending, getting rid of waste, being more efficient, etc... and I believe spending still went up 5% this past year.

0

Your unconditional rejection of violence makes you smugly think of yourselves as noble, as enlightened, but in reality it is nothing less than abject moral capitulation to evil. Unconditional rejection of self-defense, because you think its a supposed surrender to violence, leaves you no resort but begging for mercy or offering appeasement.

-Terry Goodkind

Sex Panther cologne -- 50 percent of the time, it works every time.

-Anchorman

The best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago. The second best time is now.

Let's be frank. The elephant in the room is that business people won't do sh*t until Obama is out because they are petrified of how he treat's business and the private industry. He abhors it in favor of gov't control of every facet of our lives.

Let's be frank. The elephant in the room is that business people won't do sh*t until Obama is out because they are petrified of how he treat's business and the private industry. He abhors it in favor of gov't control of every facet of our lives.

As for Obama demise spurring a massive hiring spree, not going to happen. Corporations realize they can get more productivity today than ever before from its work force resulting in less money being spent and benefits. This is Wealth of Nations 101.

As for 20 percent cuts across the board I would take a different tact not to mention it would decimate certain programs. Most of the cuts should be centered around defense. I highly doubt in our life time we will fight a conventional war again. Nation states no longer go to war with one another and if they do its fought through a proxy. Drones, computer viruses, and special forces are the way of the future.

In fact you could save 191 billion dollars by 2015 if you reduce nuclear arsenal spending, reduce the military to pre iraq levels, reduce navy and air force fleets, cancel or delay weapon programs, and alter veteran health care plans who have not been wounded in battle.

Let's be frank. The elephant in the room is that business people won't do sh*t until Obama is out because they are petrified of how he treat's business and the private industry. He abhors it in favor of gov't control of every facet of our lives.

An economy needs two things for it's "middle class" to thrive: Low food and Low energy costs, forget taxes. Food prices have been climbing so fast since 9/11 as have fuel prices. Any canidate that acknowledges and addresses these issues has a good chance of winning.

Look at how many people take food stamps on every level and WIC and other programs. I know why social safety exists, but someone has to be paying for these. This president right or wrong can be blamed for expanding them. These programs are Herion or Lays potato chips once you start, you can't stop.

An economy needs two things for it's "middle class" to thrive: Low food and Low energy costs, forget taxes. Food prices have been climbing so fast since 9/11 as have fuel prices. Any canidate that acknowledges and addresses these issues has a good chance of winning.

Look at how many people take food stamps on every level and WIC and other programs. I know why social safety exists, but someone has to be paying for these. This president right or wrong can be blamed for expanding them. These programs are Herion or Lays potato chips once you start, you can't stop.

The price of everything goes up when the value of the dollar goes down. We need to end the federal reserve so we can stop devaluing our own currency.

0

"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

I got Obama, Paul, and Bachmann. There is not a chance in hell I vote for Obama or Bachmann. I don't think this quiz is in-depth enough.

0

"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

I am mortally embarrassed that that kook Ron Paul was anywhere near the front !!

Ron Paul is a kook but Rick Perry isn't? Wow.

0

"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

I'd vote for Paul way before the other loons like Perry, Santorum, & Bachman. Paul would at least represent a real chance for a new perspective in the WH. He is the only candidate that truely represents "change". It might not be changes I would agree with but he would certainly shake things up a bit.

the sad thing is? All of these people suck. hard.

0

Official Keeper of the 3 story statue of a hockey player by the artist J. Krawczyk.That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence- Christopher Hitchensph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn

For the problems we face today, I think he's the best man for the job. He's out in la-la land on foreign policy, particularly on the dangers Iran poses, but I would be proud to vote for him because of his views on the Constitution, printing money, bailouts, debt, taxes, welfare, etc.

Sadly, it's too late for someone like Ron Paul to help, even if he had a good chance to be president. We're too far down the road to ruin. Happy holidays, everyone.

With this completely inefficient election process and voting system we have, he is better than any other viable candidate. At least his main influence is the best interest of the people and not corporate campaign donors. The only other person I would vote for is Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate.

0

"Swim against the tide, don't follow the group, stay away from the majority, seek out the fresh and new, stay away from the poseurs, and don't be a barnacle. Be original, be different, be passionate, be selfless and be free. Be a hockey fan."
--John Buccigross

That's just the tip of the iceberg. Check this out. The blatant, over-the-top racism is absolutely frightening.

It amazes me that absolutely none of the candidates are without blemishes, and that all of their blemishes are being paraded in front of us .... except for this stack of conspiracy-driven, racist, homophobic propaganda that Paul actually made money off of. How are Gingrich's marriages, Romney's flipflops and Cain's infidelities fair game, but all of this goes pretty much untouched?